Date: 10-02-2012

Case Style: Dan Spradley v. Water Taxi of Oklahoma d/b/a Bricktown Water Taxi

Case Number: CJ-2010-5070

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Timothy Edward Tipton, Thomas K. Ventura and Brian A. Williams

Defendant's Attorney: Kayci Bair Hughes and Mary S. Robertson

Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, DAN SPRADLEY, by and through his attorney of record, Tim Tipton, of the Law Offices of Daniel M. Davis, and for his cause of action as against the Defendant, Water Taxi of Oklahoma DBA Bricktown Water Taxi, and, alleges and states as follows:

1. That on or about July 3, 2010, the Plaintiff was injured while riding in a water taxi either owned or operated by the defendants Water Taxi of Oklahoma dba Bricktown Water Taxi and John Doe.

2. That the water taxi question was either owned or operated by the
Defendants, and that they had exclusive custody and control over the water taxi, and were negligent in the operation and control of the water taxi.

3. That at the time of this accident, the Defendant John Doe was an employee or agent of the Defendant Water Taxi of Oklahoma dba Bricktown Water Taxi and thus Water Taxi of Oklahoma dba Briektown Water Taxi is responsible for the negligent actions of their employee or agent.

4. That the Defendants negligent operation and control of the water taxi caused the Plaintiff injury, and he has suffered pain, incurred past and future medical expenses, and has lost wages both past and future.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff, Dan Spradley, demands judgment as against the Defendants, Water Taxi of Oklahoma dba Brickto Water Taxi and John Doe, in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court and an amount in excess of the necessary limits for diversity jurisdiction, interest, costs and any and all further relief to which he may be entitled in law and equity.

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT WATER TAXI OF
OKLAHOMA DBA BRJCKTOWN WATER TAXI

Defendant Water Taxi of Oklahoma dba Bricktown Water Taxi (“Defendant Water Taxi�), for its answer to the Original Petition filed June 17, 2010, alleges and states as follows:

1. Defendant Water Taxi generally denies all factual allegations in the Original Petition unless the same are specifically admitted herein.

2. Defendant Water Taxi denies the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Original Petition.

3. With regard to paragraph 2 of the Original Petition Defendant Water Taxi is without sufficient information and belief to admit or deny the allegations relating to the ownership and control of the water taxi in question as plead. Defendant Water Taxi denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 2 of the Original Petition.

4. Defendant Water Taxi denies the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Original Petition.

5. Defendant Water Taxi denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Original Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

In further Answer to the Original Petition, and by way of affirmative defenses, Defendant Water Taxi states that it will rely upon the following, if applicable and likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Defendant Water Taxi does not hereby assume the burden of proof that would otherwise rest on Plaintiff.

1. Plaintiff has failed in whole or in part to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part based upon the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches, or unclean hands.

3. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part because the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any.

4. This action is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff has suffered no injury or damages as the proximate result of any conduct by Defendant Water Taxi.

5. This action is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff is seeking damages for medical conditions wholly unrelated to the proximate result of any conduct by Defendant Water Taxi.

6. This action is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs’ alleged damages were caused, if at all, by Plaintiffs negligence or the negligence of third parties, If any of Defendant Water Taxi’s acts were negligent, which Defendant Water Taxi specifically denies, then Plaintiffs negligence or the negligence of third parties contributed to Plaintiffs damages in an amount greater than the negligence of Defendant Water Taxi.

7. ‘[‘his action is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs’ alleged damages were caused, if at all, by adverse weather conditions, andlor a direct, immediate, and exclusive operation of a force of nature. If any of Defendant Water Taxi’s acts were negligent, which Defendant Water Taxi specifically denies, then the adverse weather conditions andlor forces of nature contributed to Plaintiff’s damages in an amount greater than the negligence of Defendant Water Taxi.

8. The damages alleged may have been the result of preexisting conditions, natural causes, or causes not related to any conduct of Defendant Water Taxi.

9. At all relevant times Defendant Watcr Taxi complied with and attempted to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and conducted itself in a careful, reasonable, and prudent manner.

10. Any injuries to Plaintiff were not a foreseeable result of Defendant Water Taxi’s conduct, and Defendant Water Taxi is not liable to Plaintiff

11. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Water Taxi had no knowledge of any unfitness, incompetence or characteristic of any of its employees that Plaintiff has alleged to be the proximate cause of his alleged injuries.

12. Defendant Water Taxi reserves the right to plead additional affirmative defenses after proper and complete discovery and does not hereby waive any affirmative defense or matter of avoidance not asserted herein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Water Taxi of Oklahoma dba Bricktown Water Taxi, having fully answered Plaintiffs Original Petition, prays as follows: (i) that Plaintiff take nothing by way of his claim; (ii) that Plaintiffs Original Petition be dismissed in its entirety; (iii) that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Water Taxi; (iv) that Defendant Water Taxi recover all cosis, reasonable attorney fees, and other expenses incurred in the defense of this action; and
(v) that Defendant Water Taxi be awarded such other and further relief both at law and in equity, which this Court deems to be just and proper.

Pre-Trial Order

On July 3, 2008, Plaintiff was a passenger on a water taxi operated by an unknown
employee of Defendant when it collided with another water taxi. Plaintiff alleges Defendant and/or its employee was negligent in its operation of the water taxi, and that such negligence caused injury to Plaintiff.

Defendants deny that they negligently operated the water taxi and state that the two water taxis may have bumped. It is not in dispute that Plaintiff waited well more than a year before he sought any medical attention for his alleged injuires and Defendants allege that Plaintiff was not injured. The medical conditions which Plaintiff now alleges that he suffers could not have reasonably been caused by the bumping water taxis.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: